Cases

CHARLES R. STEIB * NO. 2020-CA-0424 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL LAMORAK INSURANCE * COMPANY, ET AL. FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM CIVIL D

OPINION James M. Dowd, Presiding Judge Khyree Davis was convicted after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County of one count of the unlawful use of a weapon, an associated count of armed criminal action, and one count of second-degree murder. Davis was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty-five, three, and twenty-five years in prison, respectively. On appeal, Davis contends (1) the trial cour

CLARK, Chief Judge: The district court entered summary judgment dismissing an action by the natural guardian of a minor trust beneficiary against former and present trustees and *269 repository banks on grounds that the suit was barred by res judicata. Finding that all claims before the district cou

CV6-645.MAYO TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-96-00645-CV Randy Dale Mayo, Appellant v

HOLMES, Circuit Judge. The Webre Steib Company, being a processor of centrifugal sugar and molasses, was required to pay $8,169.97 as processing taxes under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, 7 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq. After the tax was declared illegal and the taxpayer’s claim for refund had been disallowed, this proceeding was instituted before the Processing Tax Board of Review for the recovery of the total tax paid. Fr

324 U.S. 164 (1945) WEBRE STEIB CO., LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. No. 148. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 13, 1944. Decided February 12, 1945. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. *165 Messrs. C.J. Batter and William A. Sutherland argued the

Statement of the Case. MONROE, C. J. A minority of the stockholders of Webre-Steib Company, Limited, consisting of seven women and three men, and holding 580, out of 2,100, .shares of the stock of the company, of the par value of $25 each, prosecute an appeal in this case from a judgment denying their application for the appointment of a-receiver. They allege, in substance, that the majority

This suit is founded upon a judgment for $13,643.03, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum from its date, rendered against the defendant by a state court in El Paso, Tex., on the 19th of June, 1916. The present suit was filed on the 3d of March, 1927; that is, more than ten years after the judgment was rendered by the Texas court. The defendant being a nonresident, the plaintiff obtained a writ of attachment, under which the sheriff seized a tract of land containing about 442 acres in Sabine

Mr. ChiEE Justice Carter delivered the opinion of the court: This is a bill for the partition of two tracts of farm land, of 140 acres and 16 acres, respectively, situated in Henry county. After the pleadings were settled a hearing was had before the chancellor and the amended bill was dismissed for want of equity. This writ of error is sued out to review the procee

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge. Wife, Tamera Lynn Walker Fox, appeals from the pendente lite (PDL) order of the trial court in her favor in the action for dissolution of her marriage to husband, Dennis William Fox. We affirm. Husband and wife were married in October 1982 and separated on July 20, 1992. Wife filed her petition for dissolution of marriage on September 2, 1992. One daughter was bom of the marriag

Case: 19-30447 Document: 00515900985 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED

OPINION This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated assault. Punishment, enhanced by allegation and proof of one prior felony conviction, was assessed by the jury at 15 years and a $7500 fine. The prior conviction used to enhance punishment in this case was for destruction of property under Art. 1350, V.A.P.C. (1925). After the primary offense was pending on appeal, appellant filed for post-conviction habeas corpus relief in the prior conviction. The tri

ODELL ALLEN, AUDRY * NO. 2022-CA-0622 ALLEN, NIHESHA ALLEN, AND LOLA ALLEN, * INDIVIDUALLY AND ON COURT OF APPEAL BEHALF OF DECEDENT, * JOYCE ALLEN FOURTH CIRCUIT * VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* EAGLE, INC., ET AL.

Opinion Lisa S. Van Amburg, Judge Appellant Michael Layden (Husband) appeals the trial court’s judgment of modi*670fication, as well as its judgment awarding Respondent Nicole Layden (Wife) attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Background On July 2, 2010, the marriage of Husband and

396 S.W.2d 155 (1965) L. D. WHITTLE, Appellant, v. Winnie Davis SAUNDERS, Appellee. No. 14444. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. November 10, 1965. Blanks, Thigpin, Logan, Steib & Lewis, San Angelo, for appellant. James E. Nugent, Carroll Cleo Haston, Kerrville, for appellee. MURRAY, Chief Justice. This is a venue case. The suit

HOLDRIDGE, J. Defendant/appellant, W & T Offshore, L.L.C., appeals a judgment of the trial court denying its claim for injunctive relief and damages against plaintiffs/appellees, Texas Brine Company, L.L.C., and Texas Brine Corporation.1 *973FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-00-00779-CV Jimmy L. Bruton, Appellant v. R. J. Reynolds, Inc. and J. Tyler Wilson, CEO, Appellees<

GUIDRY, J., dissenting. [jAt issue in this appeal is not whether the Dillons were granted a jury trial, but whether they were entitled to a new jury. The opinion asserts that a party is entitled to a jury that continues to be qualified under the criteria required by law. As a preliminary matter, it is observed that on appeal, the appellants simply argued that they were prejudiced by the use of the same ju

JiBYRNES, Judge. Plaintiff purchased a car from a company other than defendant-relator. Within the month, plaintiff purchased a second car from relator allegedly because relator’s salesman represented that he would somehow cancel the promissory note on the first car. When the plaintiff applied for credit on the second car, he did not disclose the debt on the first car. The note was not cancelled, and the salesman allegedly

683 F.Supp. 1064 (1988) Charles W. KEMPE, Jr., et al. v. OCEAN DRILLING & EXPLORATION COMPANY, et al. Nos. 86-0352, 86-0891, 86-3535. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. April 15, 1988. *1065 Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, Harry S. Rosenberg & James P. Reid, Harry S. Redmon, Jr. T.A., Richard N. Dic